1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is doing the business of transport and he is owner of truck bearing registration No. Pb13-J-0235. The said truck is only source of income for the livelihood of the complainant. The said truck is fully insured with the opposite party insurance company vide insurance policy bearing No.  10003/31/17/258728, which was valid from 6.9.2016 to 5.9.2017. On 18.2.2017 at about 11.15 p.m. when the complainant was going from Amritsar to Tarn Taran and when he reached near Gurwali Gate, near Bhinder Petrol Pump, Amritsar one motorcycle driver tried to overtake the truck of complainant in a very rash and negligent manner and when the complainant tried to avoid the accident and to save the life of the motorcycle driver, the truck in question came down to Kachha Road from the main road, which is below than the constructed road and it turned turtle over the Kacha road. The said truck and its body was badly damaged in the said accident and the complainant immediately on the spot informed the opposite party regarding the said accident on their help line No. 180030030000 and 180010330009. Thereafter the surveyor of the opposite party namely Er. Rohit Kapoor sent a message to the complainant for the inspection of the truck in question and he inspected the said truck on 20.2.2017 and assessed the loss occurred to the said truck to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter the truck in question was taken to M/s Kashmir Body Makers, Shop No. 463, Transport Nagar, Amritsar for its body repair and other repair works and since then the said truck is lying in their custody. It was assured by the surveyor of opposite party that the truck in question is covered under the said insurance policy of the opposite party and opposite party will pay the repair charges  of the said truck and its body, but till date the opposite party company has not cleared the claim of repair charges of the truck in question and the same is lying with Kashmir Body Maker till today. The opposite party is liable to pay the claim of repair charges of truck in question as per aforesaid policy but they are not paying the same and lingering on the matter on one pretext after the another. The estimated repair amount of the truck in question is approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-. The truck in question is lying there from   20.2.2017 which is caused huge financial loss to the complainant. The said truck has been purchased by the complainant by taking a loan. Loan interest and other incidental charges are also causing extra burden on the complainant, when the truck in question is not in working condition since February 2017. The complainant has many a times approached the opposite party and requested  to clear the claim of repair charges of his aforesaid truck but the opposite party has not acceding the request of the complainant.  The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may kindly be awarded to the complainant:-

(a)     The opposite party may kindly be directed to clear and pay the claim of repair charges of the truck bearing registration No. PB13-J-0235, which is approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-

(b)     On account of mental tension, pain, agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant, he may kindly be compensated to tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(c)      The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this commission, therefore he is not entitle for any relief. The opposite party received the accident information on 20.2.2017 and appointed the individual surveyor Mr. Rohit Kapoor for investigation of the accident. The surveyor submitted his report to opposite parties with his opinion that “As per  insure date of loss is 18.2.2017 @ 9.00.a.m. and claim intimated to insured on 20.2.2017 @ 11.00 A.M, Vehicle spot survey also done on 20.2.2017 and in my opinion no injured will keep vehicle in capsize condition for 2 days. Moreover, during my spot survey inspection Engine Bonnet found missing , no broken glass/ intact front glass seen on spot. As per my opinion claim man made claim to take undue advantage of insurance and to get to vehicle maintenance done hence insurer may deal according to this” Hence it has been specifically mentioned that the claim has been repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of the fact by the complainant and claim has been repudiated vide letter which was posted to the complainant on 29.4.2017, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is legally not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed, as the complaint has been filed for commercial activity, which do not lie under Consumer protection Act.  The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action qua the opposite parties. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, not entitled for any claim. the complainant cannot get any benefit of his own wrong as he has misrepresented the opposite parties and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, he is not entitled for any claim. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        To prove the case of the complainant, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered n evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A copy of visiting card Ex. C-1, copy of estimates Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4, copy of the policy schedule Ex. C-5, copy of the estimate Ex. C-6, copy of the driving license Ex. C-7,. Photographs Ex. C-8 to ex. C23, documents regarding Vodafone bills are Ex. C-24 and C-25 and closed the evidence. On the other hand,  Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered in evidence affidavit of Shailesh Vindul Ex. OP1, 2/A, copy of surveyor report Ex. OP1,2/1, copy of letter dated 29.4.2017 Ex. OP1,2/2, copy of postal receipt dated 29.4.2017 Ex. OP1,2/3, copy of policy Ex. OP1,2/4, affidavit of Rohit Kapoor, Surveyor Ex. OP1,2/5, copy of policy Ex. OP1,2/6, terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP1,2/7 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6        In the present complaint, the complainant is doing business of transport and he is owner of truck bearing registration No. PB 13J0235. The truck is fully insured with the OP Vide insurance policy bearing no 10003/31/17/258728, which is valid from 06.09.2016 to 05.09.2017. on dated 18.02.2017 at 11:15PM , when the complainant is going from Amritsar to Tarn Taran, truck met an accident and its body was badly damaged and the complainant immediately on the spot informed the OP regarding the said accident on OP helpline No. 180030030000 and 180010330009. On dated 20.02.2017 Surveyor of the OP Er. Rohit Kapoor,sent a message to the complainant for the inspection of the truck and assessed the loss occurred to the said truck to the tune of Rs 200,000/- . Thereafter, truck was taken to M/S Kashmir Body Maker, shop No. 463, Amritsar for its body repair and other repair works but till date the OP has not cleared the claim of repair charges of the truck and the same is lying with Kashmir Body Maker. Later when the complainant approached the OP they orally informed the complainant that his claim has been repudiated but no letter has been received by the complainant till date . OP stated in their written version that the Surveyor Mr. Rohit Kapoor submitted his report  “as per insured dated of loss is 18/02/2017 @9Am and claim intimated to insurer to 20.02.2017 @11 Am , vehicle spot survey also done on 20.02.2017 and in Surveyor opinion no insured will keep vehicle in capsize condition for 2 day, moreover during my spot survey inspection, engine, bonnet found missing, no broken glass/intact front glass seen on spot . As per surveyor opinion, claim man made claim to take undue advantage of insurance and to get to vehicle maintenance done”. Hence it has been specifically mentioned that the claim has been repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of the facts by the complainant and claim was been repudiated vide letter which was posted to the complainant on 29.04.2017 (Ex OP1,2/2). In the view of above discussion,The complainant has only one point in his favour that he called helpline Number of the OP , on the spot and to prove his evidence he attached the call detail of his number (Ex C-24) but same cannot justify that he informed about the accident of the truck or not . Further the complainant placed on records the copy of the bill estimates (Ex. C2 to C4 , C6) but as per surveyor report Rohit Kapoor nowhere assessed the loss of the truck to the tune of Rs 200,000/- (Ex OP 1,2/1)  further complainant attached the photographs of the truck (Ex.C-8 to C-23) but as per surveyor report – Engine , Bonnet found missing ,no broken glass /intact front glass seen on spot . To justify his report surveyor Affidavit is attached as (Ex OP1,2/5). Further , repudiation letter on dated 29.04.2017 sent to the complainant (Ex OP1,2/3)as an evidence OP attached the postal receipt regarding the same (Ex OP 1,2/3) .  The opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Surveyor Ex. OP1,2/5 to support his report Ex. OP1, 2/1. The Hon’ble National Commission held in “Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” I (2007) CPJ-278 (NC) that the surveyor report, being an important document, has to be given due weightage, unless rebutted by some cogent evidence on the record. The complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to rebut the report of the surveyor and there is no reason to disbelieve the said report.  The claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground of misrepresentation of fact by the complainant and it is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  The Hon'ble State Commission has relied upon the ruling of the five judge bench of the Apex Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain and Anr. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1644. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr that in a contract of insurance the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the contract. Terms of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed. No exception can be made on the ground of equity- in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. In this case also contract of insurance between the parties is based on terms and conditions of the policy and must be followed in letter and spirit.

7        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

20.09.2022